Donald Trump – American Democracy Legal Fundhttp://americandemocracy.org
American Democracy Legal Fund (ADLF) is a nonprofit organization committed to promoting accountability and ethics in government and campaigns by shining a light on public officials and candidates who put their own interests ahead of public service.Tue, 01 May 2018 21:56:07 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.5http://americandemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/cropped-adlf-icon-32x32.pngDonald Trump – American Democracy Legal Fundhttp://americandemocracy.org
3232New Legal Problems For Michael Cohen Revealed By ADLF Investigation Request Filed Today With The FEChttp://americandemocracy.org/new-legal-problems-michael-cohen-revealed-adlf-investigation-request-filed-today-fec/
Tue, 01 May 2018 21:54:44 +0000http://americandemocracy.org/?p=2750New Legal Problems For Michael Cohen Revealed By ADLF Investigation Request Filed Today With The FEC A new complaint from the American Democracy Legal Fund filed with the Federal Election Commission today reveals a new avenue of potential legal woes for Michael Cohen, Donald Trump, and the Trump campaign related to Cohen’s $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. ADLF is alleging […]

A new complaint from the American Democracy Legal Fund filed with the Federal Election Commission today reveals a new avenue of potential legal woes for Michael Cohen, Donald Trump, and the Trump campaign related to Cohen’s $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. ADLF is alleging Trump, his campaign, and Cohen, along with Trump Campaign Treasurer Mr. Bradley T. Crate, violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by using campaign funds to pay for Cohen’s legal fees—fees unrelated to the Trump campaign or Trump’s official duties as President.

ADLF’s complaint is the first to ask for an investigation, with the premise that Mr. Cohen’s $130,000 payment to adult entertainer Stormy Daniel was not related to the 2016 Election, as Cohen has repeatedly insisted.

“The more Michael Cohen and Donald Trump speak, the more trouble they put themselves in,”said Brad Woodhouse of ADLF. “For months they maintained this hush money was unrelated to the 2016 Election as a desperate effort to stave off the obvious questions about their dishonest and potentially illegal behavior. Now, even if we take all these con artists at their word, they are still up to their eyeballs in legal problems — all stemming from an effort to silence a woman with whom Donald Trump had an affair.”

An excerpt from the complaint reads, “If we are to take Mr. Cohen at his word, and believe that the $130,000 payment was made irrespective of the Trump Campaign, then payments by the Trump Campaign to McDermott, Will & Emery for Mr. Cohen’s legal defense blatantly violate the Act and Commission regulations to the extent those costs are related to the ongoing Stephanie Clifford matter. Unless the three payments totaling $227,936.31 were entirely unrelated to Ms. Clifford, the use of campaign funds to pay Cohen’s legal fees qualifies as an impermissible conversion of campaign funds to personal use by Respondents, and blatantly violates federal law.”

]]>ADLF Files Criminal Complaint For Trump Organization’s Misuse of Presidential Seal on Golf Course Equipmenthttp://americandemocracy.org/adlf-files-criminal-complaint-trump-organizations-misuse-presidential-seal-golf-course-equipment/
Wed, 07 Mar 2018 19:57:50 +0000http://americandemocracy.org/?p=2732ADLF Files Criminal Complaint For Trump Organization’s Misuse of Presidential Seal on Golf Course Equipment Today, the American Democracy Legal Fund has filed a request for a criminal investigation with the U.S. Department of Justice over the Trump Organization’s use of the presidential seal on private golf course equipment, which implies sponsorship or approval by the federal government. According […]

Today, the American Democracy Legal Fund has filed a request for a criminal investigation with the U.S. Department of Justice over the Trump Organization’s use of the presidential seal on private golf course equipment, which implies sponsorship or approval by the federal government.

According to Propublica and several other news reports, the Trump Organization has ordered new tee markers for their golf courses that are emblazoned with the seal of the president of the United States. Under federal law, however, the seal’s use is permitted only for official government business. Use of the seal otherwise can lead to criminal charges and is punishable by up to six months in prison.

“President Trump and his personal business are violating the law and exploiting the highest office in our government for personal profit,” said ADLF’s Brad Woodhouse. “The Department of Justice must immediately investigate this flagrant violation of the law and hold those responsible accountable. The presidential seal is not a trophy for Trump and his cronies to use to make a quick buck.”

]]>ADLF Files GAO Complaint vs Trump, Pence, and Saccone For Illegal Use of Taxpayer Moneyhttp://americandemocracy.org/adlf-files-gao-complaint-vs-trump-pence-saccone-illegal-use-taxpayer-money/
Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:14:59 +0000http://americandemocracy.org/?p=2719ADLF Files GAO Complaint vs Trump, Pence, and Saccone For Illegal Use of Taxpayer Money The American Democracy Legal Fund has filed a complaint with the Government Accountability Office against President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence for using taxpayer dollars to travel in support State Rep. Rick Saccone’s campaign in the upcoming Pennsylvania special election. ADLF […]

The American Democracy Legal Fund has filed a complaint with the Government Accountability Office against President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence for using taxpayer dollars to travel in support State Rep. Rick Saccone’s campaign in the upcoming Pennsylvania special election. ADLF is requesting an investigation into whether the three individuals recklessly violated federal law by using government resources for electoral gain.

“Trump tweeted that he was going to Pennsylvania to help Rick Saccone — which is as blatant an admission as you can get that a taxpayer-funded event was done for partisan electoral purposes,” said ADLF’s Brad Woodhouse. “Taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill for Trump’s politicking. His actions aren’t just a violation of promises he made on the campaign trail, it’s also a violation of the law.”

The complaint states, “According to the White House, these campaign stops were meant to support the massive, deficit-busting tax cut for corporations and billionaires that Trump forced through Congress despite the pleas of millions of middle-class Americans who – along with their children and grandchildren – will end up footing the bill for this disaster for generations. But the dishonest scheme was exposed when, just before his Pennsylvania event, President Trump tweeted, “going to Pennsylvania today in order to give my total support to RICK SACCONE, running for Congress in a Special Election (March 13).”

The complaint also targets Republican Senate candidates in West Virginia, who received similarly questionable support from the White House at taxpayers expense.

Further, the events in both states were nearly identical to Trump’s campaign rallies, even including the same music playlists with Trump walking out to “God Bless The USA” and leaving to “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.”

]]>ADLF Asks FEC To Investigate NRA Support For Donald Trumphttp://americandemocracy.org/adlf-asks-fec-investigate-nra-support-donald-trump/
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:19:25 +0000http://adlegalfund.wpengine.com/?p=2703The American Democracy Legal Fund has filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against the National Rifle Association for their support of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election. ADLF is requesting an investigation into whether the NRA violated federal law by taking illegal contributions from foreign nationals in connection with the 2016 presidential election and violated the […]

]]>The American Democracy Legal Fund has filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against the National Rifle Association for their support of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election. ADLF is requesting an investigation into whether the NRA violated federal law by taking illegal contributions from foreign nationals in connection with the 2016 presidential election and violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

“Just when you thought Donald Trump’s connections to shady Russian agents couldn’t get any more revolting, that is exactly what happens. A foreign agent illegally laundering millions of foreign dollars to influence an American election in support of then candidate Donald Trump is absolutely an issue for the Federal Election Commission to take up,” said ADLF’s Brad Woodhouse. “We expect the FEC to get to the bottom of this issue swiftly and deliver the results of a thorough investigation to the American people.”

Last week, reports revealed that the FBI was investigating Alexander Torshin, a top Russian banker with ties to the Kremlin, who may have been funneling money to the NRA in an effort to help elect Donald Trump. Torshin used the NRA, which he had already been involved with for several years by 2016, to repeatedly contact the Trump campaign.

The complaint states that according to sources, the NRA spent at least $55 million dollars in connection with the 2016 election. Only contributions received by the NRA-PVF in connection with the 2016 election will be disclosed to the public. To put it another way, at least $33 million was spent to influence federal elections in 2016, but the public will never learn the source of those contributions. This is particularly problematic given the news reports detailed above and the longstanding relationship between the NRA and prominent foreign nationals in Russia whose interests in influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election cannot be denied.

]]>ADLF FILES COMPLAINTS AGAINST TRUMP FOR USING HIS CAMPAIGN TO FURTHER HIS OWN BUSINESS AND PERSONAL INTERESTShttp://americandemocracy.org/adlf-files-complaints-against-trump-for-using-his-campaign-to-further-his-own-business-and-personal-interests/
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:50:45 +0000http://adlegalfund.wpengine.com/?p=411The American Democracy Legal Fund has filed two complaints with the Federal Election Commission against Donald Trump and his campaign for violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Both complaints lay out that Trump is using his own presidential campaign to further his own business and personal interests. The first complaint highlights the events […]

The American Democracy Legal Fund has filed two complaints with the Federal Election Commission against Donald Trump and his campaign for violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Both complaints lay out that Trump is using his own presidential campaign to further his own business and personal interests.

The first complaint highlights the events on Friday, September 16 at Donald Trump’s new DC hotel, where he held a campaign event under his campaign’s logo. He opened the event by calling attention to the “nice hotel,” eventually calling it one of the best hotels in the world. Mr. Trump then “ceded the stage to a parade of decorated military veterans who testified to his toughness, his judgement and his temperament,” before asking “photographers and video cameras to accompany him on a tour of his newly-opened Trump International Hotel.” Essentially, Mr. Trump baited “the entire media into attending the opening of his new Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. by promising to finally address [a] controversy swirling around his [presidential] campaign.” In doing so, Mr. Trump “used the opportunity to turn the event into a national infomercial for his latest real-estate project.”

The second complaint highlights his use of his presidential campaign to support his personal businesses, specifically by charging his principal campaign committee more than 25 times the amount others are charged for using his properties. In doing so, Mr. Trump has engaged in the personal use of his campaign’s funds in violation of FEC law.

The complaints are available below and in full with exhibits here and here. The American Democracy Legal Fund holds candidates for office accountable for possible ethics and/or legal violations. It is run by Brad Woodhouse.

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Brad Woodhouse

American Democracy Legal Fund

455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Complainant,

v.

Mr. Donald Trump

725 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and Timothy Jost, Treasurer

725 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Respondents.

COMPLAINT

This complaint is filed under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1) against Mr. Donald Trump, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and Timothy Jost, in his official capacity as Treasurer (collectively “Respondents”) for violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”) and Federal Election Commission (the “Commission”) regulations, as described below. Respondents continue to violate 52 U.S.C. § 30114(a)(1) by consistently using Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign to further his own business and personal interests. The Commission should immediately investigate and take appropriate remedial action against Respondents for these clear violations of law.

FACTS

Mr. Trump is the current Republican nominee for President. His principal campaign committee is Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.. Mr. Trump is also the chairman and president of the Trump Organization, a privately owned international company that is engaged in real estate development, brand licensing, and entertainment. In the past, Mr. Trump has stated that, “[i]t’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.” Publicly available reports show that he is using his best efforts to make this a reality. Mr. Trump has already used at least 10 of his properties as backdrops for his campaign events. Even Mr. Trump’s defense of his use of his properties for campaign events is purely promotional: “I have the best properties. Why should I use someone else’s properties.”

Despite numerous complaints filed with the Commission regarding Mr. Trump’s impermissible use of campaign funds to support his personal business, Mr. Trump continues to use campaign press conferences and events to promote his own properties. Mr. Trump has repeatedly and unabashedly violated the Act and its regulations by continuing to promote his own business interests with resources and funds from his presidential campaign.

Mr. Trump’s latest violation occurred on September 16, 2016, where Mr. Trump “promised a ‘major announcement’ during a campaign event at his new D.C. hotel.” Standing behind a podium with his campaign logo on the front, Mr. Trump delivered his “major statement” at the Old Post Office building, the location of the “brand new Trump International Hotel” in Washington, D.C. Mr. Trump began the campaign event by calling attention to the “nice hotel,” eventually calling it one of the best hotels in the world. Mr. Trump then “ceded the stage to a parade of decorated military veterans who testified to his toughness, his judgment and his temperament,” before asking “photographers and video cameras to accompany him on a tour of his newly-opened Trump International Hotel.” This event “was another extended infomercial for [Mr. Trump’s] newly opened hotel in Washington, D.C., where the event was held.”

Mr. Trump’s “campaign” press conference was so blatantly used as a promotional tool for his new hotel that one news anchor covering the event noted that the “press tour” was nothing more than “live cable coverage of a promotion of his new hotel.” As another reporter put it, Mr. Trump managed to turn the campaign event “into an advertisement for his new hotel.” Essentially, Mr. Trump baited “the entire media into attending the opening of his new Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. by promising to finally address [a] controversy swirling around his [presidential] campaign.” In doing so, Mr. Trump “used the opportunity to turn the event into a national infomercial for his latest real-estate project.”

LEGAL DISCUSSION

Under the Act and Commission regulations, campaign contributions may only be used “in connection with the campaign for Federal office.” The Act prohibits any campaign contribution or donation from being “converted by any person to personal use.” The Act’s regulations define “personal use” as “any use of funds in a campaign account of a present . . . candidate to fulfill a commitment, obligation, or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign.” The Commission has determined that marketing commercial items, such as a candidate’s book for example, is an expense that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign and thus, the use of a principal campaign committee’s assets to promote such an item does constitute personal use in violation of the Act. A candidate may market a product using campaign committee assets only if the amount of promotion and the cost to the committee is de minimis.

Mr. Trump’s latest event has flown in the face of this very clear rule prohibiting the use of campaign assets for personal use. As documented above, on September 16, 2016, Mr. Trump used a campaign press conference and event to promote the opening of Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. This was billed as a campaign event and Mr. Trump spoke behind a podium featuring his campaign’s logo. Yet, Mr. Trump began the campaign event by calling attention to the “nice hotel,” eventually calling it one of the best hotels in the world. He then asked “photographers and video cameras to accompany him on a tour of his newly-opened Trump International Hotel.” Mr. Trump used the campaign event to advertise his newly opened hotel.

Obviously, the expenses associated with promoting and marketing Mr. Trump’s properties would exist irrespective of his presidential campaign. As a result, Mr. Trump is prohibited from promoting his business by using campaign resources. However, Mr. Trump brazenly used his campaign to promote and market his business interests, this time, inviting photographers and videographers to record a tour of his newest hotel by claiming he was holding a campaign event. Any campaign resources used and spent on the event were clearly personal use in blatant disregard of the law. And, as evidenced by the numerous complaints filed by this organization against Mr. Trump regarding personal use of campaign resources, this violation is clearly knowing and willful. Because the purpose of Mr. Trump’s campaign “press conference” was not actually to further Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, but instead to promote his newest hotel, Mr. Trump has clearly violated the law.

REQUESTED ACTION

As we have shown, Respondents have violated the Act and Commission regulations by using the campaign to further Mr. Trump’s business and personal interests. As such, we respectfully request that the Commission immediately investigate these violations and that Respondents be enjoined from further violations and be fined the maximum amount permitted by law.

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Brad Woodhouse

American Democracy Legal Fund

455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Complainant,

v.

Mr. Donald Trump

725 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and Timothy Jost, Treasurer

725 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Respondents.

COMPLAINT

This complaint is filed under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1) against Mr. Donald Trump, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the “Committee”), and Timothy Jost, in his official capacity as Treasurer (collectively “Respondents”) for violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”) and Federal Election Commission (the “Commission”) regulations, as described below. Publicly available reports suggest that Mr. Trump is overcharging his presidential campaign committee for events held on his own properties and thus using the funds from his presidential campaign to further his business interests in clear violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30114(a)(1).

FACTS

Mr. Trump is the current Republican nominee for President. His campaign committee is Donald J. Trump for President Inc.. Mr. Trump is also the chairman and president of the Trump Organization, a privately owned international company that is engaged in real estate development, brand licensing, and entertainment. In the past, Mr. Trump has stated that, “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it,” and publicly available reports show that he is using his best efforts to make this a reality.

In fact, Mr. Trump appears to have used his presidential campaign to support his personal business, specifically by charging his principal campaign committee, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., more than 25 times the amount others are charged for using his properties. Mr. Trump has engaged in the personal use of his campaign’s funds in violation of the Act and its regulations.

According to multiple news reports, Mr. Trump has been overcharging his own campaign for fundraising events held on his own property. On March 25, 2014, Mr. Trump charged the Florida Republican Party $4,855.65 to use his Mar-a-Lago Club for a fundraiser for Pam Bondi’s reelection campaign. Meanwhile, “Trump has charged his own presidential campaign around $140,000 each time it has used the resort.” News reports indicate that Trump charged his campaign $423,372 for use of the Mar-a-Lago Club for three campaign events in March of 2016: two parties on the first and fifteenth of the month, and a news conference on March 11. This $423,372 expenditure was confirmed and reported by Mr. Trump’s campaign committee in June of this year.

LEGAL DISCUSSION

Under the Act and Commission regulations, campaign contributions may only be used “in connection with the campaign for Federal office.” The Act prohibits any campaign contribution or donation from being “converted by any person to personal use.” In defining “personal use” Commission regulations include rental expenses “for real or personal property that is owned by the candidate . . . and used for campaign purposes, to the extent the payments exceed the fair market value of the property usage.”

The Commission further clarified that “so long as the campaign pays fair market value, these payments will not be considered personal use” in violation of the law. With regard to candidate-owned property, “fair market value” has been interpreted by the Commission to mean “the usual and normal” price. The profit earned by Mr. Trump through the Mar-a-Lago Club is a clear violation of the Act’s personal-use rules.

News reports have set forth a multitude of facts establishing that Mr. Trump overcharged his own campaign to his own benefit, and such payments exceed the usual and normal price paid for using such property. Mr. Trump has charged his own campaign significantly more money to use his properties for campaign events than he has charged others to use the same property for similar fundraising events. Three campaign events were held at Mar-a-Lago Club for Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, and the campaign was charged $423,372 to use the space for those three events; that is $141,124 per event, one of which was merely a press conference.

In comparison, the Florida Republican Party was charged a fraction of that to hold a similar fundraiser for a different political candidate; the Florida party paid only $4,855.65 to use the same resort for a Pam Bondi fundraiser in 2014. There is no justification for the extreme difference between the $141,124 charged to his campaign and the $4,855 charged to the Florida Republican Party.

At a minimum, such an extreme difference in price indicates that current charges to the Trump Campaign are in excess of the “usual and normal” price and thus constitute impermissible personal use of campaign funds. While Mr. Trump and his family are not precluded from receiving rental fees from the Committee for its use of their properties, the magnitude of the proportion of campaign funds spent to compensate Mr. Trump and his family calls for stricter scrutiny by the Commission of this practice, especially given the low cost of other similar campaign events at the same Trump-owned locations.

REQUESTED ACTION

As we have shown, Respondents have likely violated the Act and Commission regulations by using the campaign to further Mr. Trump’s business and personal interests. As such, we respectfully request that the Commission immediately investigate these violations and that Respondents be enjoined from further violations and be fined the maximum amount permitted by law.

]]>ADLF FILES SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT AGAINST TRUMP CAMPAIGN FOR ILLEGAL FOREIGN SOLICITATIONShttp://americandemocracy.org/adlf-files-supplemental-complaint-against-trump-campaign-for-illegal-foreign-solicitations/
Mon, 15 Aug 2016 19:57:08 +0000http://adlegalfund.wpengine.com/?p=415The American Democracy Legal Fund has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Donald Trump; and Donald J. Trump for President and Timothy Jost, Treasurer, in his official capacity, for violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. This complaint is a supplement to an initial complaint filed by ADLF on June 30th. […]

The American Democracy Legal Fund has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Donald Trump; and Donald J. Trump for President and Timothy Jost, Treasurer, in his official capacity, for violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

This complaint is a supplement to an initial complaint filed by ADLF on June 30th. Recent news reports provide additional support for the claim made in the June Complaint: that the Trump campaign has violated FEC regulations by knowingly soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals. But despite notice of the June Complaint along with public admonishment for the previous solicitation e-mails they sent to foreign nationals, the Trump campaign has persisted in e-mailing foreign parliamentarians to solicit campaign contributions.

Specifically, MPs from the United Kingdom and Australia reported receiving solicitation e-mails from the Trump campaign as recently as July 12. Terri Butler, an Australian MP, reported receiving an e-mail on July 12 from the campaign asking her to make a “generous contribution.” Australian MP Gai Brodtmann also received a solicitation e-mail which stated, “Every dollar that comes through the doors will be yet another nail in the coffin for Crooked Hillary’s campaign”

The complaint is available below and in full with exhibits here. The American Democracy Legal Fund holds candidates for office accountable for possible ethics and/or legal violations. It is run by Brad Woodhouse.

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

American Democracy Legal Fund

455 Massachusetts Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20001

Complainant,

v.

Mr. Donald J. Trump

725 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and Timothy Jost, Treasurer

725 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Respondents.

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

Complainant files this Supplemental Complaint under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1) against Mr. Donald J. Trump and his principal campaign committee, Donald J. Trump for President, and its treasurer, Timothy Jost, in his official capacity (collectively, Respondents) for violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act), as described below. We file this complaint to supplement and highlight the allegations made in the complaint we filed against Respondents on June 30, 2016 (“the June Complaint”) − principally that respondents repeatedly violated the Act by knowingly soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals. We urge the Commission to promptly investigate these violations – and given Respondents’ repeated and flagrant violations after being put on notice that their conduct was illegal, the Commission should find that violations subsequent to the filing of Complainant’s first Complaint are knowing and willful.

A. FACTS

Recent news reports provide additional support for the claim made in the June Complaint: that the Respondents have violated the Act by knowingly soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals. The June Complaint, along with additional complaints filed by other parties alleging the same violations, put Respondents on actual notice that their campaign solicitation e-mail distribution list included foreign nationals. Notwithstanding this notice, Respondents knowingly and willfully continued to send e-mails soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals as recently as July 12.

The June Complaint alleged that Respondents sent numerous solicitation e-mails to foreign parliamentarians. Scottish members of Parliament (“MPs”) reported that the Respondents sent at least four solicitation e-mails to their official public accounts. British MPs also spoke publicly about their receipt of solicitation e-mails from the Trump campaign. Members of the Icelandic parliament on both sides of the political spectrum reported receiving solicitation e-mails from Mr. Trump’s campaign. Australian MP Tim Watts said that he had “received several fundraising e-mails from the Trump campaign.” Finally, Danish MP Ida Auken tweeted the fundraising e-mail she received from the campaign, as did Finnish MP Anders Adlercreutz.

Despite notice of the June Complaint along with public admonishment for the previous solicitation e-mails they sent to foreign nationals, Respondents have persisted in e-mailing foreign parliamentarians to solicit campaign contributions. MPs from the United Kingdom and Australia reported receiving solicitation e-mails from the Trump campaign as recently as July 12. Terri Butler, an Australian MP, reported receiving an e-mail on July 12 from the campaign asking her to make a “generous contribution.” Australian MP Gai Brodtmann also received a solicitation e-mail which stated, “Every dollar that comes through the doors will be yet another nail in the coffin for Crooked Hillary’s campaign. . . .” Similarly, Bob Blackman, a U.K. MP, indicated that he also received a solicitation e-mail from the campaign on July 12, as did U.K. MP Kristy Blackman. U.K. MP Peter Bottomley shared his solicitation e-mail from the Trump campaign which stated, “[c]ontribute $3 now to be automatically entered to win a VIP trip to the Republican National Convention.” These examples illustrate the blatant fundraising purpose of these e-mails Respondents sent to foreign nationals, even after being warned that their conduct was a clear violation of federal election law.

The Act prohibits any person from knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving a contribution or donation from a foreign national. A “foreign national” is defined as an “individual who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” A person “knowingly” solicits funds from a foreign national when that individual has “actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited [] is a foreign national.”

Here, Respondents continue to solicit contributions from dozens of foreign nationals despite actual knowledge that their e-mail distribution list included foreign nationals. Respondents had actual notice that there were foreign nationals on their e-mail solicitation list after the June Complaint was filed on June 30. Furthermore, these allegations were widely publicized. Yet, numerous foreign MPs have publicly shared or discussed the solicitation e-mails they have received from Respondents well after the June Complaint was filed.

We respectfully request that the Commission investigate these violations in addition to the violations alleged in our June Complaint, and that Respondents be enjoined from further violations and fined the maximum amount permitted by law

The American Democracy Legal Fund has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Donald Trump; Paul Manafort; and Donald J. Trump for President and Timothy Jost, Treasurer, in his official capacity, for violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

On July 15, 2016, Paul Manafort, Campaign Chairman of Donald J. Trump for President, appeared on Fox and Friends for an interview. Responding to a question about an RNC donation request from Sheldon Adelson, Manafort said, “I have no idea. I’m not the RNC. I’d like to have him bail out — write a check for the Trump campaign for that amount of money if he could.”

Just five days later, Mr. Manafort called into a meeting of contributors for the new pro-Trump super PAC, Rebuilding America Now. During the meeting, Mr. Manafort expressed, “there’s no better way to help elect Donald Trump than to support [the] PAC, Rebuilding America Now.” After joining the PAC a day later, Castellanos said the the new super PAC was the primary pro-Trump organization, because the PAC was getting receiving support from Trump campaign officials.

Pro-Trump donors were in need of direction for where to channel their funds, and Mr. Manafort sought to provide that direction. However, Mr. Manafort’s solicitation of an individual super PAC donation, in excess of $5,000, was a clear violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and FEC regulations.

The complaint is available below and in full with exhibits here. The American Democracy Legal Fund holds candidates for office accountable for possible ethics and/or legal violations. It is run by Brad Woodhouse.

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

American Democracy Legal Fund

455 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

Complainant,

v.

Donald Trump

725 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Paul Manafort

725 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Donald J. Trump for President

Timothy Jost, Treasurer

725 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Respondents.

COMPLAINT

This complaint is filed under 52 U.S.C. §30116(a)(1)(A) and 52 U.S.C. §30116 (a)(2)(A), against Donald Trump; Paul Manafort; and Donald J. Trump for President and Timothy Jost, Treasurer, in his official capacity, for violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (“the Act”) and Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) regulations, as described below.

A. FACTS

On July 15, 2016, Paul Manafort, Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist of Donald J. Trump for President, appeared on Fox and Friends for an interview. Host Steve Doocy introduced Mr. Manafort as the “Trump campaign manager,” and a banner under his name read, “Chairman, Donald Trump Presidential Campaign.” Six minutes and fifty seconds into the interview, host Brian Kilmeade asked, “Is it true that Sheldon Adelson has been asked to shell out a $6 million check for all the corporate sponsors who bailed out of the RNC?” Mr. Manafort, replied, “I have no idea. I’m not the RNC. I’d like to have him bail out — write a check for the Trump campaign for that amount of money if he could.” Just five days later, July 20, 2016, Mr. Manafort called into a meeting of contributors for the new pro-Trump super PAC, Rebuilding America Now. During the meeting, Mr. Manafort expressed, “there’s no better way to help elect Donald Trump than to support [the] PAC, Rebuilding America Now.” The next day, July 21, 2016, political consultant Alex Costellanos publically announced he would be heading Rebuilding America Now. Mr. Costellanos stressed that the new super PAC was the primary PAC to which supporters should contribute, because the PAC was unique in the level of support it received from Trump campaign officials, commenting, “I don’t think any other PAC is getting that kind of encouragement.”

Within the span of one week, Mr. Manafort solicited a $6 million donation from Sheldon Adelson; Mr. Manafort spoke at a contributors’ meeting for the new pro-Trump super PAC, Rebuilding America Now; and the head of the super PAC gave an interview encouraging donations. This tight time frame is no coincidence, as the previously decentralized nature of pro-Trump super PAC funds was reportedly crippling the campaign. Pro-Trump donors were in need of direction for where to channel their funds, and Mr. Manafort sought to provide that direction. However, Mr. Manafort’s solicitation of an individual super PAC donation, in excess of $5,000, was a clear violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and FEC regulations.

B. LEGAL ARGUMENT

Under federal law, a federal candidate or officeholder, or agent thereof, may not solicit, receive, direct, transfer, spend, or disburse funds, in connection with a federal election for federal office, which are not subject to the source restrictions and contribution limits under the law. Notwithstanding this clear prohibition, while serving in his capacity as campaign chairman and chief strategist, Mr. Manafort appears to have illegally solicited a $6 million individual donation for the Trump campaign’s newly launched super PAC, Rebuilding America Now.

Mr. Manafort is an agent of the Trump presidential campaign.

FEC regulations define an agent as “any person who has actual authority, either express or implied,… to solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend” funds in connection with the election of any federal candidate or an individual holding federal office. On May 19, 2016, Trump campaign press secretary Hope Hicks announced that Paul Manafort would take over as the campaign’s chairman and chief strategist. These roles, in part, gave Mr. Manafort the authority to solicit and spend funds for the campaign, and to oversee the Vice Presidential vetting process. On July 15, 2016, Mr. Manafort appeared on Fox and Friends in his capacity as a campaign agent. As noted above, host Steve Doocy introduced Mr. Manafort as Trump’s campaign manager, and the show identified Mr. Manafort as the chairman of the Donald Trump presidential campaign. When appearing on the show, Mr. Manafort was clearly acting in his capacity as the Trump campaign chairman and manager, making him an agent of the campaign.

Mr. Manafort made a solicitation on behalf of the Trump Campaign in excess of the individual contribution limits.

The Act and FEC regulations provide that “to solicit,” in part, is to “ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.” The Act prohibits federal candidates, their agents, and entities established, financed, maintained, or controlled by candidates, from soliciting or receiving funds in connection with any election outside of the federal contribution and source limits. The Act limits individual contributions to a candidate to $2,700 per election during the 2015-16 election cycle, and contributions to a political action committee to $5,000 per year.

Solicitations need not be explicit. For instance, statements such as “You have reached the limit of what you may contribute directly to my campaign, but you can further help my campaign by assisting the State party” or “Giving to Group X would be a very smart idea” are solicitations, as are more explicit statements such as “Please give $100,000 to Group X.” Mr. Manafort’s challenged request nearly mirrors the latter.

Mr. Manafort expressly solicited an individual donation, from Republican business magnate Sheldon Adelson, during his Fox and Friends interview. Mr. Manafort said, “I’d like to have [Adelson] bail out — write a check for the Trump campaign for that amount of money if he could.” The amount of money to which Mr. Manafort referred was the $6 million donation the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) reportedly requested from Mr. Adelson. Mr. Manafort’s solicitation of the funds “for the Trump campaign” was an indication for the funds to be given to the newly created super PAC, Rebuilding America Now. The intended recipient of the $6 million requested can be gathered from Mr. Manafort’s unofficial endorsement of the new super PAC and its public launching just days after his solicitation, and from the fact while Mr. Adelson would only be able to give $2,700 per election to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., he may give unlimited amounts to Mr. Manafort’s preferred super PAC.

As noted above, federal law prohibits individual contributions to political action committees in excess of $5,000, and the Act and FEC regulations specifically prohibit an agent acting on behalf of a federal campaign from soliciting donations in violation of the codified contribution limits. Nonetheless, by soliciting $6 million from Sheldon Adelson for Rebuilding America Now, Mr. Manafort appears to have made a solicitation in excess of the $5,000 limitation, in clear violation of the Act and FEC regulations.

C. REQUESTED ACTION

As shown, Paul Manafort, Campaign Chairman and Chief Strategist of Donald J. Trump for President, violated the Act by soliciting an individual donation, for the Rebuilding America Now super PAC, in excess of $5,000. We respectfully request that the Commission investigate this violation and that Respondents be enjoined from further violations and fined the maximum amount permitted by law.

]]>ADLF REQUESTS INVESTIGATION OF DONALD J. TRUMPhttp://americandemocracy.org/adlf-requests-investigation-of-donald-j-trump/
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 00:00:56 +0000http://adlegalfund.wpengine.com/?p=417The American Democracy Legal Fund has requested that the Office of Government Ethics refer Donald J. Trump to the Department of Justice for investigation for filing an inaccurate personal financial disclosure form with the Federal Election Commission in violation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Mr. Trump reported income of nearly $5 million […]

The American Democracy Legal Fund has requested that the Office of Government Ethics refer Donald J. Trump to the Department of Justice for investigation for filing an inaccurate personal financial disclosure form with the Federal Election Commission in violation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

Mr. Trump reported income of nearly $5 million and over $20 million on his 2015 and 2016 personal financial disclosures stemming from the Trump-owned parent companies of Trump International Golf Links in Aberdeen, Scotland and Trump Turnberry in Ayrshire, Scotland. At the same time, Mr. Trump reported losses on these investments for this timeframe on his United Kingdom Companies House official accounts. Companies House is a U.K. government agency with a mandate to “register[s] the information companies are legally required to supply, and make[] that information available to the public.” The property values Mr. Trump reported on his personal financial disclosures for numerous domestic properties are also suspect. For his primarily commercial properties located in the United States, dramatic discrepancies often exist between the value of these property as assessed by a municipality and the value Mr. Trump reported on his personal financial disclosures.

The request for investigation is available below and in full with exhibits here. The American Democracy Legal Fund holds candidates for office accountable for possible ethics and/or legal violations. It is run by Brad Woodhouse.

American Democracy Legal Fund

455 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

August 2, 2016

Walter M. Shaub, Jr.

Director

Office of Government Ethics

1201 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20005

Re: Request for Investigation into Donald J. Trump

Dear Mr. Shaub:

We are writing to request that you refer Donald J. Trump to the Department of Justice for investigation for filing an inaccurate personal financial disclosure form (“PFD”) with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) in violation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended (“the Act”). As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the Act mandates that you “refer to the Attorney General the name of any individual which such official or committee has reasonable cause to believe has willfully . . . falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported.”

As detailed below, Mr. Trump reported income of nearly $5 million and over $20 million on his 2015 and 2016 PFDs stemming from the Trump-owned parent companies of Trump International Golf Links in Aberdeen, Scotland (“Golf Links”) and Trump Turnberry in Ayrshire, Scotland (“Turnberry”). At the same time, Mr. Trump reported losses on these investments for this timeframe on his United Kingdom Companies House official accounts. Companies House is a U.K. government agency with a mandate to “register[s] the information companies are legally required to supply, and make[] that information available to the public.” The property values Mr. Trump reported on his PFDs for numerous domestic properties are also suspect. For his primarily commercial properties located in the United States, dramatic discrepancies often exist between the value of these property as assessed by a municipality and the value Mr. Trump reported on his PFDs.

The Department of Justice should investigate these discrepancies to ensure that the public is granted full disclosure of Mr. Trump’s finances as a candidate for president of the United States.

Income from Scottish Golf Properties

Mr. Trump submitted a PFD to the FEC in July of 2015, as the Act requires of him as a declared presidential candidate. However, the income generated by Golf Links reported on the PFD differs dramatically from the financial state of the operation as described on Mr. Trump’s Companies House reports in the U.K.

Mr. Trump “has provided starkly contradictory portraits of the financial health of his golf course [Golf Links].” On his Companies House report for calendar year 2014, Trump reported a net loss of $1.8 million for Golf Links operations. Yet, Mr. Trump’s PFD filed in July of 2015 with the FEC reports “income” from Golf Links in the amount of $4,349.651. While the FEC-reported income is likely gross income and the $1.8 million loss is net income, the numbers still do not add up. Mr. Trump’s Companies House report for calendar year 2015 only shows approximately $3.7 million in gross profit. Unless, in the words of a reporter, “the loss-making operation in 2014 suddenly surged into profit in early 2015, when the course was closed for winter until April 1,” then the gross income reported on the FEC report covering calendar year 2014 plus early 2015 does not align with the net loss reported for calendar year 2014 on the Companies House report.

The same discrepancies hold true for Mr. Trump’s financial filings for his other golf course in Scotland, Trump Turnberry. For the calendar year 2014 financials reported to Companies House, Trump reported a loss of $5.6 million for Turnberry. Yet on his 2015 PFD filed with the FEC, Mr. Trump reported income from the project of $20,395,000. Again, while the FEC-filed report may represent gross income and the losses reported on the Companies House report show net losses, nonetheless, the Companies House report only indicates approximately $12 million in gross profit from 2014 − far short of $20 million. Unless company profits exploded in early 2015 during the golf off-season, the income Mr. Trump reported from Turnberry to the FEC should be substantially similar to the gross profits reported to Companies House for calendar year 2014.

Domestic Property Values

As with the income from the Scottish golf courses, numerous domestic properties are valued dramatically differently in Mr. Trump’s May 2015 PFD from their assessed values. Under the Act, “value” means exact value unless exact value is not known or easily ascertained, in which case a filer can substitute exact value with “a good faith estimate” of value. Mr. Trump’s properties have each been assessed a recent market value by the municipality in which they are located. Despite a known exact market value for these properties, Mr. Trump reported significantly different values for numerous properties than those recorded by the relevant municipality.

According to property records maintained by the New York Department of Finance, Fifty-Seventh Street Associates LLC, a commercial real estate company that appears to hold only one property, 4 East 57th Street, New York, New York, has an assessed market value of $16,611,000 for tax year July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Yet, for a nearly identical time period, Mr. Trump’s May 2016 PFD reported the value of the property at over $50,000,000. Commercial properties in New York, such as office buildings like the property located at 4 East 57th Street, are assessed by accounting for the property’s income-earning potential. Estimated annual income is based, in part, on information provided by the taxpayer (in this case, Mr. Trump) in his or her annual Real Property Income and Expense filing. This means that the market value assessment of $16,611,000 includes Mr. Trump’s company’s own assessment of its value. Consequently, the value of the property as represented by Mr. Trump on his PFD should be comparable, if not the same, as the market value assessed by New York City. Instead, there is, at a minimum, a discrepancy of over $30,000,000 between the PFD value and the assessed value.

Many of Mr. Trump’s PFD property valuations show this same, alarming pattern: the property values represented by Mr. Trump are vastly different from the market value assessed by the relevant municipality. In North Castle, New York, a company owned by Mr. Trump, Seven Springs LLC, owns two buildings located at 82 and 84 Oregon Road. The combined market value of these properties for 2015, according to the North Castle assessor, is $11,391,110. Yet on his PFD covering most of 2015, Mr. Trump again reported the value at over $50,000,000. Similarly, a condominium owned by Mr. Trump located at 721 5th Avenue in New York City was assessed with a market value of $5,206,505. Again, Mr. Trump’s PFD covering the same general time period reported its value at over $50,000,000. These valuation discrepancies are pervasive and warrant investigation by the Department of Justice.

Request for Action

The significant, widespread discrepancies between both income and property values reported by Mr. Trump on his PFDs compared to those memorialized in government records both domestically and in Scotland represents a violation of the Act’s mandate to provide a “full and complete statement” of all income and assets.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that you promptly refer this matter to the Department of Justice for investigation. Prompt action is necessary to ensure that the public is granted full disclosure of Mr. Trump’s finances as a candidate for president of the United States.

The American Democracy Legal Fund has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Americans for Liberty and Free Enterprise PAC and its Treasurer, Gary F. Fox II, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump for President and its treasurer, Timothy Jost, for violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

Americans for Liberty and Free Enterprise PAC (ALFE) is an independent expenditure-only committee or Super PAC supporting or opposing more than one federal candidate. ALFE failed to file a year-end report. ALFE also recently failed to file its April Quarterly Report. On July 6, 2016, ALFE sponsored a Trump for President campaign unity rally that included speeches from Juli Haller, a Trump for President campaign staffer.

It is clear that Respondents are engaging in impermissible contributions and coordination. Federal law treats expenditures by a non-party, non-candidate sponsor that are coordinated with a campaign as in-kind contributions to the candidates or political party with whom they were coordinated.

The complaint is available below and in full with exhibits here. The American Democracy Legal Fund holds candidates for office accountable for possible ethics and/or legal violations. It is run by Brad Woodhouse.

This complaint is filed under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1) against Americans for Liberty and Free Enterprise PAC (“ALFE”) and its Treasurer, Gary F. Fox II, in his official capacity; Donald J. Trump (“Trump”); and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and its treasurer, Timothy Jost, in his official capacity (collectively, “Respondents”), for violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”) and Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) regulations. ALFE impermissibly contributed to and coordinated with the Donald J. Trump for President campaign by paying for a campaign rally that featured staffers from Trump’s campaign.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Donald J. Trump is a declared candidate for United States President and is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. His principal campaign committee is Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. ALFE is an independent expenditure-only committee or Super PAC supporting or opposing more than one federal candidate. Bryan Crosswhite is its Custodian of Records Gary F. Fox is its treasurer. ALFE failed to file a year-end report. ALFE also recently failed to file its April Quarterly Report. On July 6, 2016, ALFE sponsored a Trump for President campaign unity rally that included speeches from Juli Haller, a Trump for President campaign staffer.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

It is clear that Respondents are engaging in impermissible contributions and coordination. Federal law treats expenditures by a non-party, non-candidate sponsor that are coordinated with a campaign as in-kind contributions to the candidates or political party with whom they were coordinated. Specifically, “expenditures made by any person in cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, his authorized political committees, or their agents, shall be considered to be a contribution to such candidate.” Under 11 C.F.R. § 109.20(b), “[a]ny expenditure that is coordinated . . . but that is not made for a coordinated communication . . . is either an in-kind contribution to, or a coordinated party expenditure with respect to, the candidate or political party committee with whom or with which it was coordinated and must be reported as an expenditure made by that candidate or political party committee[.]” Because an independent expenditure-only committee does not adhere to any contribution limitations or source restrictions, it cannot make in-kind contributions to a candidate’s campaign committee.

Here, however, respondents have done just that. ALFE is an independent expenditure-only political committee that may not cooperate, consult, or act in concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or authorized committee or agent thereof with regard to its independent expenditures. ALFE incurred and paid for campaign expenses for which a campaign is obligated to pay and made impermissible contributions to the Donald J. Trump for President campaign committee. Furthermore, it appears as if ALFE has been openly coordinating its activity with Trump’s campaign committee. ALFE’s failure to file the required reports with the FEC hinders the public’s ability to assess the extent of the illegal activity in which Respondents are engaging, frustrating the disclosure requirements proscribed by federal law and regulations. Thus, the FEC should investigate whether ALFE has been coordinating with Donald Trump and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and whether Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. has accepted and ALFE has made any illegal in-kind contributions to Trump’s campaign. Furthermore, the FEC should investigate ALFE’s failure to file the required disclosure reports.

III. CONCLUSION

As we have shown, Respondents have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. We respectfully request the Commission to investigate these likely violations, including whether they were knowing and willful. Should the Commission determine that Respondents have violated the Act, we request that Respondents be enjoined from further violations and be fined the maximum amount permitted by law.

]]>ADLF FILES COMPLAINT AGAINST DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE DONALD J. TRUMP FOUNDATIONhttp://americandemocracy.org/adlf-files-complaint-against-donald-j-trump-president-of-the-donald-j-trump-foundation/
Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:03:35 +0000http://adlegalfund.wpengine.com/?p=419The American Democracy Legal Fund has filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against Mr. Donald J. Trump, President of The Donald J. Trump Foundation for violating IRS code. In clear violation of the law prohibiting private foundation managers from sanctioning self-dealing, Mr. Donald J. Trump, president of the Foundation and unmistakably a “disqualified […]

The American Democracy Legal Fund has filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against Mr. Donald J. Trump, President of The Donald J. Trump Foundation for violating IRS code.

In clear violation of the law prohibiting private foundation managers from sanctioning self-dealing, Mr. Donald J. Trump, president of the Foundation and unmistakably a “disqualified person”, engaged in self-dealing with the Foundation when he used Foundation assets to “furnish goods” for himself. Specifically, Mr. Trump purchased a football helmet for himself at a charity auction in 2012. Thus, Mr. Trump erred not only in allowing the foundation to engage in self-dealing, but was himself the self-dealer in the transaction.

The complaint is available below and in full with exhibits here. The American Democracy Legal Fund holds candidates for office accountable for possible ethics and/or legal violations. It is run by Brad Woodhouse.

On behalf of the American Democracy Legal Fund, I request that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigate Mr. Donald J. Trump, president of The Donald J. Trump Foundation, in his capacity as organization manager and as a self-dealing party, for violating the prohibition against self-dealing by Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) section 501(c)(3) private foundations. I request that the IRS open an investigation immediately to determine whether Mr. Trump should be assessed an excise tax penalty for self-dealing under Code sections 4941(a)(1) and (2), applicable to foundation managers and self-dealers respectively.

Description of The Donald J. Trump Foundation and Mr. Trump’s Role as Manager

Formed in 1987, the Foundation is a tax-exempt private foundation organized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. As a private foundation without a detailed website, its exempt purpose is not readily available in public records. However, its Foundation Center profile indicates that the Foundation’s grant-making primarily goes towards “health organizations, youth development, and social services.” The Foundation’s 2014 Form 990-PF lists grants to organizations ranging from schools and cancer research organizations to other foundations and theatre groups. In addition, the Foundation has recently been featured in news reports regarding its soliciting of contributions and its grant-making for veterans organizations.

Since its inception, Mr. Trump has served as president of the Foundation. Thus, for nearly 30 years, Mr. Trump has voluntarily assumed a fiduciary responsibility to the Foundation that bears his name. As president of the Foundation, it is Mr. Trump’s responsibility to understand what the Foundation can and cannot do with its charitable assets and his fiduciary duties to the Foundation.

Legal Background

Private foundations are strictly prohibited from entering into self-dealing transactions with “disqualified persons,” including 1) a substantial contributor to the foundation, and 2) a foundation manager. “Manager” is further defined as “an officer, director, or trustee” of a foundation. The statutory definition of “self-dealing” includes direct or indirect 1) “furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between a private foundation and a disqualified person,” and 2) “transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of, a disqualified person of the income or assets of a private foundation.”

A violation of the self-dealing prohibition will result in an initial excise tax penalty against both the self-dealer (10 percent of the transaction at issue) and against a foundation manager who knowingly participates in an act of self-dealing (5 percent of the transaction at issue), unless the participation is not willful and is due to reasonable cause. A manager knows that an act constitutes self-dealing if he or she: has actual knowledge of facts that are sufficient to determine that the situation would be self-dealing; is aware that the act may violate the law governing self-dealing; and “negligently fails to make reasonable attempts to ascertain whether the transaction is an act of self-dealing.”

If the act of self-dealing is not corrected within “the taxable period,” the self-dealer can be subject to a tax equal to 200 percent of the transaction at issue, and the manager who knowingly participated and refused to agree to all or part of the corrective action can be charged with a tax of 50 percent of the transaction amount, up to a maximum of $20,000.

Finally, the IRS may revoke an organization’s tax-exempt status for repeated or egregious self-dealing violations.

Mr. Donald J. Trump’s Act of Self-Dealing

In clear violation of the law prohibiting private foundation managers from sanctioning self-dealing, Mr. Donald J. Trump, president of the Foundation and unmistakably a “disqualified person”, engaged in self-dealing with the Foundation when he used Foundation assets to “furnish goods” for himself. Specifically, Mr. Trump purchased a football helmet for himself at a charity auction in 2012. Thus, Mr. Trump erred not only in allowing the foundation to engage in self-dealing, but was himself the self-dealer in the transaction.

Mr. Trump attended a fundraiser for the organization Susan G. Komen for the Cure in Palm Beach, Florida on January 15, 2012. At the event, Mr. Trump bid on a Denver broncos football helmet signed by then-star quarterback Tim Tebow, and ultimately won the helmet for $12,000. Mr. Trump was praised for his generosity in the local Palm Beach Daily News for this contribution to the breast cancer charity.

However, a subsequent Washington Post investigation into Mr. Trump’s contributions to charity revealed that Mr. Trump did not pay for the helmet−the Foundation did. The check that Susan G. Komen for the Cure received was written from the account of The Donald J. Trump Foundation, a section 501(c)(3) private foundation for which Mr. Trump serves as president. It is unclear whether Mr. Trump is still in possession of the helmet.

What is unambiguous is that Mr. Trump, a disqualified person and manager and fiduciary of the Foundation’s charitable assets, used Foundation dollars to purchase football memorabilia that he personally coveted. As the self-dealer in this transaction, Mr. Trump is liable for excise taxes for the act of self-dealing even if he “had no knowledge at the time of the act that such act constituted self-dealing.”

However, it is highly likely that Mr. Trump knowingly participated in this act of self-dealing as Foundation manager. As longstanding president of the Foundation, Mr. Trump has had decades to become familiar with the laws governing the Foundation. In this case, he had actual knowledge of the facts at issue since he himself was the self-dealing party, and he should have known that the situation would constitute self-dealing. While the regulations state that “the term ‘knowing’ does not mean ‘having reason to know,’” they are also clear that “evidence tending to show that a person has reason to know of a particular fact or particular rule is relevant in determining whether he had actual knowledge of such fact or rule.” The IRS should investigate what Mr. Trump knew when he purchased the helmet for his personal use with Foundation dollars.

Because Mr. Trump is both the Foundation manager who authorized the transaction at issue and the self-dealer who benefited from it, the evidence calling for an IRS investigation into this matter is doubly compelling.

Conclusion

In light of this evidence pointing to a violation of the well-established prohibition on self-dealing by section 501(c)(3) private foundations, we request that the IRS open an immediate investigation of Mr. Donald J. Trump in his capacity as president of The Donald J. Trump Foundation and in his role as self-dealer with regard to the purchase of the Tebow helmet.